Is it about Photography... or about God?

I doubt the priest sees himself as an employee. And to him it is only their special day vis a vis and thanks to God. So he probably felt it was his job to control decorum.

I bet his name is Ted Cunterblast. Who the hell does he think he is?

Well, it looked like the videographer(s) was working for the couple – at least, that’s the only reason I can think of that the person would try to argue to stay there. If the priest felt that strongly about it, he would have said something if he was included in the discussion about where the cameras should go. So, I can only conclude that it’s the couple’s fault, for not involving him in that discussion. Maybe they thought they’d hired a rent-a-priest for their occasion, not realizing that it’s a solemn one for him.

Also – I don’t think the priest can be regarded as simply an employee. It’s his church. He has a kind of authority there that the monetary relationship does not supercede.

It has little to do with God and more with people.

The priest perceivwd them as obtrusive and they likely were. Priest, videographers and the couple should have discussed the rules of engagement beforehand. Then one could now tell who was to blame for this embarrising situation.

Both the priest and the video crew are supposedly professionals, so both should have initiated such a discussion.

So… All are to blame, jncluding the couple for not having such a discussion, or the one that broke ‘the rules’. In any case this wasn’t about God, but about egos.

God could’ve squated the crew like flies, had He taken offense.

I like the shakedown tag. I have little experience with the catholic church, but a nurse I work with told me the story about how her father was an electrician and always fixed up the local church for free, because he was a good Italian. When he died, the priest would not perform rites with out the cha-ching. They paid him but were so disgusted they officially lapsed.
Ego.

Here is what I think:
The oaf had to see them set up the cameras, and he had to know, if he is not a complete brainless imbecile, that they would be used to take photos during the “ceremony”, so he could have talked to the couple about this issue beforehand.
But he did not do that. No.
He waited until the middle of the ceremony. Why?
Because he wanted to raise a stink just for the hell of it.
What a massive dingleberry.

When I got married, video of weddings was ll new, and the priest was not at all ready for it, but he did allow a camera to shoot on a tripod from the side. Catholic priests are all about decorum.

I have been to weddings where the photographer thinks he is running the whole show, stopped the couple walking down the aisle because he wasn’t ready, roaming on the altar during the ceremony. That’s a bad photographer.

from what I saw it didn’t look like the camera was on a tripod back there. I think the operator swooped in for the money shot. In fact you can see the tripod at the far back of he aisle. When the cameraman moves away it looks like he was standing on a table. I think the priest did not expect that to be the setp

He’s an idiot.

Well, to him, it’s clearly more about God. The question is, so what? Does that matter to you or to the couple?

I dunno. The cost of the Tog is probably 10X what the Priest cost.

The look on his face makes me wonder why he’s so pissy. Like there is some investigation he’s concerned about keeping secret.

Your story makes me sick @drhat77. Thanks for sharing it.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I doubt what the couple wants is relevant to him. It seems to me he believes holds what the couple needs – sanctification of their union before God. Cuz otherwise they’re a bunch of fornicators. we still burn fornicators at the stake, right?

“This is NOT a photography session”.

Uh, yeah it is motherfucker. And you’re ruining it.

crowd applauds. bride keels over in laughter. priest pulls shroud over head and slinks away…

… murmuring something in latin…

… backwards…

Since this is in social I can answer off topic.

Although real eyes is not revealing his identity here I have to say that I have seen his work and his photography is absolutely sensational. Some of the best I’ve ever seen.

@drhat77 Sure, it’s not relevant to the priest but it’s relevant to the couple or the photographer. Each of these is an actor, trying to interact with the others. Each has to think there is meaning to what’s going on and every reading of the situation, to me, is just as pointless or not as that of every other actor.

News Flash… Crabby Priest is Crabby

@Simone_De_Beauvoir no doubt the priest may have chosen to be more tactful, but if he believes his role is not equivalent to the others, then his behavior seems more justified understandable. If family cannot maintain decorum while I resuscitate a critical patient I (politely) remove them. If the priest views his role as integral, the way I view mine, then he believes he gets all veto power.

@drhat77
believing one’s role to be integral and the role actually being integral are completely different things.
He is just a man in a funny costume reading from a pamphlet, not a paramedic. To try to equate them is frankly offensive.

@ragingloli I didn’t mean to say he was right in what he was doing. I am just getting into his head to figure out why at that moment he might think what he did was approriate.

I wonder if the priest got paid to officiate the wedding.

They should have clown mobbed it all and left him painted as a piss tart.

@Rarebear I agree. Gorgeously sensational.

Would the priest happen to align with the Amish or a similar religion? Some Amish don’t like photos because they believe photos are “graven images,” as in “thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”

@linguaphile That really shouldn’t be an issue since it’s been a long while since photography has involved any sort of etched plates.~